Talk:Kilt

On MUGs

I don't think it appropriate to have this in the lead section. MUG is a very broad term that also covers garments (such as sarongs) that are most certainly not kilts. I've moved it provisionally to the section on contemporary kilts. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this included here at all? I'd say put it in its own article. Has as much to do with the kilt as crocs do with golf shoes.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. What a Utiliskirt has to do with a Scottish kilt, I don't know. SmellsBurntToast (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has very little to do with it. But then this article is not Scottish kilt, it's Kilt. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of the kilt should be first, as it is actually an ancient battle dress worn by Macedonian and Romans. The skirt-like pleats allowed easier leg movements. There is nothing feminine about it--it is not a "skirt".68.231.184.131 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You may add that the Ontario seperate school board in Canada has many high schools that have kilts as part of the uniform for the females. There are different colours reflecting the team colours for the schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.11.0 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive request

{{archiveme}} --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for not including it in my previous edit summary, though. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Kilt actually arrived in Scotland with a tribe called the 'Scoties' from Ireland, a tribe that gave Scotland its name.EC6 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kilt

I tried to tidy up the non-standard use of the definite article when referring to kilts in the plural that is evident throughout this article. There's no explanation as to why they should be referred to thus, and it's confusing to readers who are not familiar with the usage.

I can fully understand why it may be used when discussing the kilt as a national symbol and the like (and left references to the kilt in these sections), but using it when describing the construction of an item of clothing just sounds like a pretentious affectation bestowing unexplained importance. We wouldn't describe other clothing in such a way, what makes kilts different? I did not get up this morning and put on "the shirt". We do not talk about wearing "the hat". Using the definite article is giving an item of clothing (which to most readers is all it is) a particular significance that is not relevant for most of the article and has a hint of POV about it. For instance, Kimonos are Japan's national dress, but the Kimono article doesn't bestow it with such an honour on every single mention. It may be 'The Kimono' in Japan's POV, but everywhere else they're just kimonos.

It's also interesting to note that in the Contemporary kilt section these kilts are apparently undeserving of this, and as mere clothing are just "kilts". To me that just confirms that all the preceding mentions are POVs being used to emphasise just how special "the kilt" is unlike all others.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling kilts "kilts" and this article needs to differentiate between instances when it is referring to clothing and where it is discussing the significance of a national dress. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Escape Orbit: this article is about kilts in general and not specifically about the kilt. TechBear (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also largely agree, although I think we can retain "the" in certain instances (e.g. "history of the kilt") for more varied prose. We could even go nuts and put in a mention or two of "a kilt". bridies (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You articular dare-devil! TechBear (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with calling kilts, "kilts". Neither is there anything wrong with talking about "the kilt". Both are normal usage within Scotland, not an affectation. And since the article was mostly written by Scots, both usages appeared. To come along and change all instance of the kilt to "kilts" in a blanket fashion, accompanying it with a comment that it was done because use of the definite article is an "affectation", was extremely insensitive, however well intentioned it may have been. There are places within the article that could be improved by changing the words "the kilt" into "kilts" but this was a textbook case of how not to do it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "the kilt" is not normal usage in Scotland imo. I also think your getting worked up about nothing, there's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. bridies (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. However that is not the issue here. A simple bold edit without that particular comment would not have been a big deal at all. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well my point as is that I think that referring to an item of clothing as "the" is an affectation, simply because you'd never do it with any other item, and are using it to imply something particularly special for no obvious reason. However, accept my apologies if anyone found it 'insensitive'. What I was trying to say, in the limited space, is that the uniform use of "the kilt" across the entire article is unusual use of the language that is likely to puzzle readers and is introducing a cultural significance to inappropriate parts of the article. As I said, I did not change it "blanket fashion", I intensionally avoided mentions of "the kilt" as a cultural icon.

The usual plural of "kilt" is "kilts" and using this is without any POV, what is what the article should strive for. Can we agree on this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. However let's take a step back from that because your contributions to this discussion demonstrate that you don't actually know why the word "the" is often used for the kilt. It's got nothing to do with "using it to imply something particularly special". It's just a Gaelicism which has become fairly widespread. Not too surprisingly since kilts were much more popular in Gaelic speaking areas during their 19th century heyday than in English-speaking areas. However even among English-speakers without Gaelic the usage isn't that strange. I would certainly not think it affected for anyone to talk about "The history of the top hat" rather than "The history of top hats". Neither usage implies anything special about top hats: each usage is just an alternative phrasing. One might be more commonly used than the other but neither is wrong nor particularly affected. As a matter of style you might prefer one over the other and the same is true for use of "the kilt" versus use of "kilts". Sometimes one is better; sometimes the other. Affectation doesn't come into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did know that. And generally using another language's phrasing for no obvious reason is an affectation. However, this is not the point. Your example isn't what I'm talking about, as clearly what is being talked about is the top hat (or kilt) as a definitive item. I'm referring more to things like; "In between wearings, the kilt should first be aired out and then hung in a closet." Which "the kilt" are we talking about? Should it be hung next to "the coat"? Or would it not be far clearer to say "In between wearings, kilts should first be aired out and then hung in a closet." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case it would be a little clearer; far clearer would be stretching it a bit. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this though. I've already stated in every reply to you so far that there are sentences where it's better to write "kilts" than "the kilt" and I've no doubt that both of us can think up such sentences. The contentious issue lies with your use of "affectation" to describe the usage not with the general point that "the kilt" can often better be replaced with "kilts". There we both agree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this myth constantly peddled that kilts only became widespread in Scotland from the 19th century? It's a load of nonsense. The royal seals of Kings Alexander I, David I and Calum IV show the Kings in kilts, and the accounts of the chief treasurer to James V for the year 1538 show £22.16.6 spent on Highland dress. If anything, the kilt has become LESS popular than it previously was.--Steafan31 (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to an article linked in this one, History of the kilt. In short: The Dress Act of 1746 made it a criminal offense to wear any kind of "Highland dress," including the kilt. After the act was repealed 1782, an effort was made to revive Highland dress and keep it alive, but it would not be until 1822 when King George IV visited Scotland that kilts became a part of popular Scotish culture. TechBear (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Any connection with the "kilt´s" of southern Europe?

Is there anyone that has claimed or dismissed the theory of the roman acestorage of the scottish kilt?

Roman kilt.

https://www.alexanderscostumes.com/store/images/Roman%20Warrior%20Costume%2015086.jpg

http://www.anniescostumes.com/fa49362.jpg

Albanian kilt.

http://www.albmuzika.com/costumes/valledevolli.jpg

http://www.forumilir.com/download.php?id=639&t=1&f=34

--Durim Durimi (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Kilt

This image isn't very useful to this article. To outline its deficiencies;

• It's not a very good painting. Its artistic merits are subjective and irrelevant, the point of images on the article are to inform, but this one is rather crude with indistinct detail.
• The tartan isn't clear at all. It could be just about any.
• We have no information of who Duncan Campbell of Inverneill is, when this was, or why his kilt is of interest.

If we had a bit of background info it might be more informative. As it is, it's just a bad painting of someone in a kilt.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the kilt is remarkably useful to the article. It clearly demonstrates the age of kilts as it is an obviously old portrait. For your information it is by David Wilkie so you calling it a "bad painting" is a very uninformed lowbrow statement. The unusual dress accompanying the kilt also demonstrates another way to wear a kilt!

The picture of yourself is obviously intended for your own benefit to plaster yourself over peoples computers. Perhaps if the tartan were more visible it would make for an informative image but as it is it is very unclear. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.195.242 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2009

Is the above comment by Craigenputtock? If so, please log in and sign your comments. Also be aware that edit warring through anonymous IP accounts is liable to get your account blocked.

As I explained above, my point is that it is a bad illustration for this article as the details are indistinct. Its artistic merits are of no consequence. The purpose it is suppose to serve is to inform the reader on kilts. What you claim it illustrates is by the by, because none of this is mentioned or explained on the article or image. Naturally readers are liable to remain "very uniformed". Perhaps you would like to inform them?

The picture I am restoring was neither taken by myself, of myself, or submitted by myself. I have no personal axe to grind in this matter, unlike yourself.

Please do not continue to edit war and address my concerns. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we've got four recently taken photos of men in formal attire. I think maybe one is really enough. Why not try spice up the photos or illustrations that show the various uses of kilts and different styles? It should be pretty easy to find a good example of a kilt worn by a military unit. Maybe someone can come up with a photo of a lacrosse kilt mentioned in the article. The photo of the Irish band is pretty good since it shows how thin and narrow the pleats can be. Maybe we can find something that illustrates the wide box pleats.--Celtus (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Citation

You will want to add information about this new book Scottish Arms and Armour by Fergus Cannan http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/5675615/Scots-fought-in-bright-yellow-war-shirts-not-Braveheart-kilts.html --rumjal 05:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

"Kilt" or "Feileadh-Mhor" ?

While I appriciate the extensive thought that has gone into the current article, alot of stock has been put into the modern name for the garment and its scandanavian name as being the clue to the origin of the garment. While there can be no doubt that scandanavian countries and others were at war with the celts, and britons for an extensive period of time the entymology of the word in scandanavian describes more than it provides a proper noun. The garments proper name in scots gealic is the "Feileadh-Mhor". While very little is known about the garment before proscription when everything remotely highland or indeed scottish was being systematically erradicated from the scottish national identitiy, such as pipes, national dress, dancing, clan names etc etc. Any reasearch on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt as most proper records of the day were either destroyed or lost by the time proscriptionAct of Proscription 1746 was repealed.

When again we see a return to scottish national identity under the adherents of the Jacobite cause and Prince Charles Edward to the interest that was taken by Her Majesty Queen Victoria and the fad she developed for all things scottish. In addition the ability to record family and clan records under offical registry.

Simply said don't belive everything you read, much of the professing done by many so called experts on the subject cannot say for certain the legitimacy the "Feileadh-Mhor" has on scottish identity and the current importance it plays for everyone Gaelic as most of these offical records have never existed or were lost forever in the numerous wars with england. Remember "History is sometimes written by those who have hanged heroes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"the entymology of the word"? How did bugs get involved in this discussion?